Cheerleader Fraudulently Obtains Order To Scrub Web Of Her Boyfriend-Beating Past

[Livnthedream]

The case that we just entered involves Megan Welter, a young woman who achieved a degree of publicity success in the summer of 2013 with the story of how an Iraq war veteran had become a cheerleader for the Arizona Cardinals football team. A few days later, she learned how fickle the media can be: it got its hands on a less flattering situation: in a fit of jealous rage at her boyfriend’s communication with one of his exes, Welter called the police claiming that he was abusing her physically. But when the police arrived, the boyfriend persuaded them, through cellphone video as well as Welter’s own on-the-scene admissions, that it was Welter herself who was the assailant. The upshot was that Welter was arrested and charged, and that story, based in part on the boyfriend’s statements to the police, received national coverage in the print and broadcast media, as well as on various sports-related blogs and web sites. Many of these sites carried bodycam video from the responding police, plus the cell phone video that the boyfriend provided to the police; a few even linked to a detailed police report describing Welter’s own self-incriminating statements.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ing-past.shtml

Also:

In conclusion, Megan Welter no doubt regrets that she called down a rain of publicity on herself, and her former boyfriend appears to have been willing to help her in her effort to put her past behind her. But American law does not provide a “right to be forgotten” that overrides the First Amendment rights of news media and professional web sites to provide truthful information about past controversies. Welter cannot be granted injunctive relief suppressing unflattering coverage, even if her former boyfriend had the misplaced gallantry to help her get such a court order.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...8be4c#comments


There, better?

And the question should be pretty obvious, is this sort of action ok? For a country that doesn't have a Right to be Forgotten law is this sort of workaround reasonable?

[WskyDK]

Jesus fuck. A wall of links.
Edit: to keep this on topic, there's no debate here. No question was asked. Two paragraphs of statements were posted without any indication of what we're supposed to discuss.

[elaina]

Jesus fuck. A wall of links.

This was my first impression.

[Livnthedream]

It is two links. Is that really awful now? Seriously?

[Stop Pretending]

What are we supposed to talk about?

[WskyDK]

It is two links. Is that really awful now? Seriously?

Ask a question, give a thought on the matter.

[D3thray]

Seriously F wapo. If it's seedy and underhanded when tabloids do this kinda shit to celebrities, how is it any different here. The only one coming out of this looking bad is the Washington Post.

[Ripster42]

What are we supposed to talk about?

About how this is a cmdrshepard alternate account. No one else posts meaningless threads about cheerleaders.

[Livnthedream]

Ask a question, give a thought on the matter.

I did, I even edited op just for you.

About how this is a cmdrshepard alternate account. No one else posts meaningless threads about cheerleaders.

Try again.

[Bapestar]

About how this is a cmdrshepard alternate account. No one else posts meaningless threads about cheerleaders.

Nice one rofl.

[ItachiZaku]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander? Or... fuck you, you cunt ass bitch.